Time Warner/CBS battle could set pattern for future retrans deals Read more: Time Wa

This could be bad news, can't believe I am supporting Time-Warner.

http://www.fiercecable.com/story/tim...ource=internal
Time Warner Cable's (NYSE: TWC) current standoff with CBS (NYSE: CBS) over retransmission fees is being closely watched by other TV distributors such as NBC, ABC and Fox and could ultimately set the standard for future negotiations.

Typically retransmission negotiations focus on small fee increases, but CBS has asked for a big increase to make up for what it considers a historic injustice in terms of what cable and satellite providers pay for their content. According to SNL Kagan as reported by Hollywood Reporter, CBS wants to leap from 66 cents per subscriber per month to $2 per subscriber per month.

According to SNL Kagan analyst Justin Nelson, any time one of the larger networks such as CBS sets a new standard in terms of pricing, it's likely the rest will follow. CBS is considered a trailblazer in this area, and the company is saying it delivers much more in terms of programming and viewership and believes it should be paid market rates.

SNL Kagan also noted that in 2011, total broadcast retransmission fees were only $1.76 billion, while cable channels were paid around $27 billion that same year.

I keep hoping the day will come when there are no TV networks at all, and everything is VOD directly from the producers. All we need is a seismic shift in advertising so the advertisers give credits directly to the viewers for watching their interactive ads, then the viewers can spend the VOD credits on whatever shows they want to watch.

Perhaps this could happen after we rebuild in the post-apocalyptic world someday :-).

The historic injustice is that the broadcasters use the public airwaves essentially for free to transmit a signal you can receive for free if you handle the antenna part yourself, but if you subcontract out that part (giving the station a larger viewership to sell to advertisers), all of a sudden they think they're bleeping HBO or something and should get paid for that otherwise free signal.

Remember, the original law the broadcasters tried to get passed was nicknamed "must carry, must pay".

I agree, I support TWC in this case. Probably the first time I've ever supported TWC! I do not get CBS, they get paid by their advertisers, AND they get paid by rebroadcasters (cable & satellite)?? Isn't that double dipping? CBS is a national OTA network, shouldn't their income be from advertisers only?

But don't the cable companies ALSO replace part of the ads? (Nowadays -- I'm not saying it's always been that way.)

There are local avails in the cable channels, like TNT and USA and CNN, etc., where the cable company puts an ad for themselves or one that they've sold locally, like for a car dealership, but if you see an ad for your cable company on a broadcast station they're "re-transmitting", it's very likely that the cable company bought time on the station (or worked a trade out or some other deal), and that the ad was in the station's OTA signal as well.

Which only makes sense, as you'd want to advertise cable service towards those watching OTA and *not* yet subscribing to cable.

CBS is just plainly being greedy. Unfortunately, all most people will see is that they can't get it on their cable network, so they are going to yell at Time Warner for being cheap (they'll not realize that their bill will go up to compensate).

I wonder how much they are losing on advertising revenues in those affected markets.

If TWC or any other cable company was not allowed to retransmit broadcast networks then they would lose many customers. The cable companies make a lot of money by transmitting the local networks. Just look at the customers paying $10-$20 for lifeline style plans which basically just include local channels. CBS and the other networks should be allowed to negotiate a fair rate to allow TWC to retransmit their network. The fact that customers could get it for free if they had an antenna doesn't change that fact.

If TWC or any other cable company was not allowed to retransmit broadcast networks then they would lose many customers. The cable companies make a lot of money by transmitting the local networks. Just look at the customers paying $10-$20 for lifeline style plans which basically just include local channels. CBS and the other networks should be allowed to negotiate a fair rate to allow TWC to retransmit their network. The fact that customers could get it for free if they had an antenna doesn't change that fact.

Definately on TWC's side on this one. I have TWC and I'm in Dallas where CBS is blacked out. I dont have Showtime anymore, and was going to pick it up when Homeland comes back on, but if I have to do without it, thats fine I'll live. I'm sick of cable giving in to this and in the end I'm the one that pays. I hope they hold the line and continue to say no to CBS demands. They need to be the first one who never gives in. If no one ever does then these practices will never change.

They could transmit whatever your antenna is tuning as a digital signal to your DVR, like VOD. As long as they packetize it so each user is receiving the digital signal from a unique tuner then it's not being rebroadcast. They could actually do this with all the local channels and say FU to them all. In fact with the courts siding in favor of Aereo the networks should be careful about how greedy they get or the cable companies might actually consider that as a viable option.

In fact with the courts siding in favor of Aereo the networks should be careful about how greedy they get or the cable companies might actually consider that as a viable option.

Although challenged in the Second Circuit, Aereo's scheme is considered to be noninfringing use for now. However, BarryDriller Content attempted to offer a service substantially similar to Aereo in the Ninth Circuit but could not survive a preliminary injuction.

Because a circuit split appears to be developing, expect this issue to work its way to the Supreme Court eventually.

They could transmit whatever your antenna is tuning as a digital signal to your DVR, like VOD. As long as they packetize it so each user is receiving the digital signal from a unique tuner then it's not being rebroadcast. They could actually do this with all the local channels and say FU to them all. In fact with the courts siding in favor of Aereo the networks should be careful about how greedy they get or the cable companies might actually consider that as a viable option.

I don't understand how that is not re-broadcasting.

If I stick up an antenna and tune in CBS, then stream it out to the internet for you to watch, I would be in trouble.

__________________
Jeff
Proud to use my TiVo improperly
President of the TiVoShanan Fan Club

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If I stick up an antenna and tune in CBS, then stream it out to the internet for you to watch, I would be in trouble.

The issue is whether your streaming of the broadcast station is creating a "public performance." If you receive a single broadcast and allowed more than one individual to view a stream of that broadcast, you'd likely be infringing public performance rights in any circuit.

However, Aereo has a complicated system with thousands of tiny antennas which allows a single received broadcast to remain segregated from any other, from the broadcast's origin at OTA to its destination where it is viewed by a user. This follows the approved remote DVR service litigated in Cartoon Networks LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc., 536 F.3d 121, 123 (2d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 2890 (2009).

This argument has not been persuasive in Ninth Circuit courts, so don't expect to see Aereo in California any time soon.